On 28/04/2026 15:09, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 4/28/26 11:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 28/04/2026 11:04, Michal Simek wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 4/28/26 10:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 28/04/2026 10:33, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/28/26 08:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 09:27:02AM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote: >>>>>>> Describe an AMD BRAM-based soft-core processor subsystem instantiated in >>>>>>> programmable logic and using dual-port BRAM for firmware storage and >>>>>>> execution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The binding models a soft-core processor subsystem instantiated in AMD >>>>>>> programmable logic and using dual-port BRAM for firmware storage and >>>>>>> execution. The remoteproc device is represented as a child node whose >>>>>>> reg property describes the firmware memory window in the processor-local >>>>>>> address space. The parent bus node provides standard devicetree address >>>>>>> translation through ranges so Linux can access the same BRAM through the >>>>>>> system physical address space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A clock input feeds the soft-core processor subsystem, and an active-low >>>>>>> reset GPIO holds the processor in reset until firmware loading >>>>>>> completes. The firmware-name property is optional. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <[email protected]> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> .../bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml | 98 >>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+) >>>>>>> create mode 100644 >>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git >>>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml >>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml >>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>> index 000000000000..f16657dc0d9f >>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ >>>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>>>>>> +%YAML 1.2 >>>>>>> +--- >>>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/amd,bram-rproc.yaml# >>>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +title: AMD BRAM-based Remote Processor >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +maintainers: >>>>>>> + - Ben Levinsky <[email protected]> >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +description: | >>>>>>> + Soft-core processor subsystem instantiated in AMD programmable logic >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> + using dual-port BRAM for firmware storage and execution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't the soft-core or FPGA still part of some Xilinx SoC? Or is this >>>>>> completely different thing from SoC and there is a design WITHOUT SoC >>>>>> using this remote proc? >>>>> >>>>> In 99% case this is going to be used on Xilinx SOC with programmable >>>>> logic next >>>>> to ARM core. >>>>> soft core means - means VHDL/Verilog code synthesized to programmable >>>>> logic/fpga. It means exact location in chip varies based on build and >>>>> constraints. >>>>> >>>>> hard core - physical HW location - like ARM cores in our chip. >>>>> >>>>> (ARM is providing RTL/code that even ARM cores in fpga emulated platforms >>>>> are >>>>> actually used as soft cores). >>>>> >>>>> Not sure if you want me to talk about that 1% use cases which are also >>>>> possible >>>>> but don't think anybody will design them. >>>> >>>> Then I would treat it exactly like every other block of a SoC - you need >>>> a SoC specific compatible. If there is a fallback, SoC specific >>>> compatible should be used in the fallback as well - that's all already >>>> documented in writing-bindings. >>> >>> But which SOC? We have ZynqMP, Versal, Versal NET, Versal Gen 2. And all of >>> these will use this configuration. >>> Do you want to list all of them? >> >> "Then I would treat it exactly like every other block of a SoC" > > No issue. Here is snippet. > > properties: > compatible: > items: > - enum: > - xlnx,zynqmp-bram-rproc > - xlnx,versal-bram-rproc > - xlnx,versal-net-bram-rproc > - amd,versal2-bram-rproc > - const: amd,bram-rproc > > The example should also be updated:
Yes, except what I wrote earlier and is mentioned in the writing bindings doc - the specific compatible should be also the fallback. Best regards, Krzysztof
